Сообщение

Reviewing

GENERAL GUIDELINES

All manuscripts are subject to impartial peer review.

The review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment, an analysis of the merits and demerits of the article presented.

The reviewers might be selected among acknowledged experts on the subject field relevant to the manuscript’s topic (the members of editorial council or the external peer reviewers), who have a degree of candidate or doctor of science.

Single-blind reviewing is carried out in the journal.

The number of reviews submitted is determined by the editorial staff. Usually, one review is enough to make a decision to publish. More than one reviewer is appointed in cases where the article is carried out at the "junction" of sciences or scientific directions. According to the decision of the editor-in-chief, additional review can be assigned after receiving the initial review.

The external peer review shall take no more than one month.

The reviewer submits a review, at his discretion, in an arbitrary form (1-2 sheets of typewritten text), or according to the form proposed by the editors. The text of the review is submitted to the editorial staff in a typewritten version with a personal signature, or electronically from the mail address of the reviewer.

The final decision on the possibility of publishing an article is taken by the editorial board taking into account the received review (reviews), as well as the author's reasoned response (authors).

The referees’ reports are filed and kept by the Journal and the Publishing House for a period of five years from the date of publication of the manuscript or the date of the Journal’s decision to reject manuscript. The Journal shall send copies of the referees’ reports to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the request therefor.

REMARKS FOR THE REVIEWER

The editorial office asks the reviewer to consider that the main goal is not to reject the article, but to determine the reasons why it should be published (or not published).

The reviewer should provide substantiated responses to the following questions:

  • degree of the author’s competence in the present state of research in the subject area;
  • conformity of the paper’s content to the journal scope;
  • novelty and originality of the results;
  • significance of the contribution to the development of theory and practice;
  • conformity of the paper title to its content;
  • adequacy of annotations and keywords, sufficiency of the references’ list;
  • consistency of the material presentation, clarity of language and style of presentation;
  • design and technical presentation of the text;
  • adequacy and validity of the conclusions.
 
войти

Авторизация